Is metaphysical naturalism a worldview that is ultimately based on faith?

[Gambit]

"Only matter exists" is a metaphysical claim.

Yes, it's a claim of materialism.

 

[raw_thought]

Idealism (that only thoughts are real) is also a metaphysical claim.

 

[raw_thought]

My apologies . I am using a tablet and quoted the wrong person. Damn these big fat fingers! LOL
The quote I wanted insulted metaphysics .The person was confused as to the definition of "metaphysics ".

 

[raw_thought]

The only way to grasp the ultimate nature of reality is at a higher level of abstraction (meta). We are in agreement .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The only way to grasp the ultimate nature of reality is at a higher level of abstraction (meta).

Or rather the only way to speculate about it.

 

[Willamena]

Why call it physicalism if it holds the nonphysical is as ontologically real as the physical?

I'm not arguing for physicalism, I'm arguing for physical.

Edit: Physics is a discipline of science that studies the physical. Its practitioners are not limited by physicalism.

 

[Gambit]

I'm not arguing for physicalism, I'm arguing for physical.

I don't know what this means?

Edit: Physics is a discipline of science that studies the physical. Its practitioners are not limited by physicalism.

Physicalism is a metaphysical position that qualifies as a form of metaphysical naturalism.

In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2]

Physicalism is closely related to materialism. Physicalism grew out of materialism with the success of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law). (source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)

 

[Willamena]

Physicalism is a metaphysical position that qualifies as a form of metaphysical naturalism.

Yes.

 

[Gambit]

Yes.

So, when you say you're arguing for the physical, what exactly are you proposing?

 

[raw_thought]

Suppose I am an eliminative materialist (one that believes that only matter exists). For them concepts are only neurons firing. How can neurons firing refer to a universal? Matter does not refer to anything. An "on" light switch does not know that the light is on. The signifier "on" has nothing in common with an on light.
Since conxepts (by definition ) refer and matter cannot refer, then if eliminative materialism is true it cannot refer to anything. In other words, if eliminative materialism is true it must be meaningless!

 

[Willamena]

So, when you say you're arguing for the physical, what exactly are you proposing?

That the term physical is defined and needed for physics. I can't imagine why Nous thought otherwise.

 

[Gambit]

That the term physical is defined and needed for physics. I can't imagine why Nous thought otherwise.

I see. So how does physics define the physical?

 

[prometheus11]

That the term physical is defined and needed for physics. I can't imagine why Nous thought otherwise.

I might be to blame for that. I hope not.

Nous and I had a long discussion a few weeks ago where he wanted to assert that because energy wasn't entirely physical somehow spooky God spiritual mystical feel good fuzzy wuzzy NOT materialism and physicalism.

I explained that I wasn't concerned with dark energy and electromagnetism being nonphysical if it was real and caused real, detectable, measurable results on physical matter.

He agreed with me and then went on to keep arguing that because of dark energy and "non physical" forces are at work, spiritual spooky God mystical feel good fuzzy wuzzy.

 

[Willamena]

I see. So how does physics define the physical?

I linked the Oxford dictionary earlier. I can't now, as I'm on my phone, and would invite you kindly to look it up for yourself.

 

[Willamena]

@Gambit, about something you said earlier, physics studies the physical, but is not solely inclusive of the physical except as its subject matter. And even there it may cross over into other fields of study as the topic demands. In all other matters it makes good use of the nonphysical, as all humanity must.

 

[Gambit]

@Willamena

Merriam-Webster defines "physical" as follows:

1 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things

 

[prometheus11]

@Gambit, about something you said earlier, physics studies the physical, but is not solely inclusive of the physical except as its subject matter. And even there it may cross over into other fields of study as the topic demands. In all other matters it makes good use of the nonphysical, as all humanity must.

I think it's important to note that physics draws conclusions and provides names to phenomena that affect physical matter. Like with gravity, we don't understand the mechanism, but it causes a physical effect. It'd be stupid for physicists to ignore a continual, predictable, precisely mathematically modeled effect on physical matter just because we don't understand how gravity actually does what it does.

And, just because we don't know the exact mechanism of gravity (or dark energy, for example) doesn't mean it's mystical. Mysterious =/= mystical.

 

[Gambit]

@Gambit, about something you said earlier, physics studies the physical, but is not solely inclusive of the physical except as its subject matter. And even there it may cross over into other fields of study as the topic demands. In all other matters it makes good use of the nonphysical, as all humanity must.

There is a difference between claiming that physics employs mathematics (something that is clearly nonphysical) and claiming that mathematical objects have ontological existence. (The difference is between materialism and some form of dualism.)

 

[Gambit]

I think it's important to note that physics draws conclusions and provides names to phenomena that affect physical matter. Like with gravity, we don't understand the mechanism, but it causes a physical effect. It'd be stupid for physicists to ignore a continual, predictable, precisely mathematically modeled effect on physical matter just because we don't understand how gravity actually does what it does.

And, just because we don't know the exact mechanism of gravity (or dark energy, for example) doesn't mean it's mystical. Mysterious =/= mystical.

But physicists believe that gravitons mediate the gravitational force. So, while these hypothetical elementary particles have yet to be physically detected, the belief in the physics community is that they really do exist and will be physically detected some time in the future. On the other hand, quantum mechanics (at least according to the standard interpretation) holds that there is no mechanism, even in theory, to completely account for a quantum fluctuation because such a event is deemed to be inherently spontaneous. And any event that is inherently spontaneous is an event that it is inherently mystical (mysterious) because it defies any strict mechanistic explanation.

 

[prometheus11]

But physicists believe that gravitons mediate the gravitational force. So, while these hypothetical elementary particles have yet to be physically detected, the belief in the physics community is that they really do exist and will be physically detected some time in the future. On the other hand, quantum mechanics (at least according to the standard interpretation) holds that there is no mechanism, even in theory, to completely account for a quantum fluctuation because such a event is deemed to be inherently spontaneous. And any event that is inherently spontaneous is an event that it is inherently mystical (mysterious) because it defies any strict mechanistic explanation.

As I said, mysterious IS NOT mystical. Why do you and others insist on this fallacy?

Just because an unknown exists is NOT proof of mystical elements.